Generated banner for Agent Owasp Compliance
Generated logo for Agent Owasp Compliance

Agent Owasp Compliance

GitHubOfficialFirst committed by imran-siddiqueDistributed by GitHub

  • Skill
  • Review and audit
  • Security
  • MIT
  • Low risk

From the author

Check any AI agent codebase against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 risks. Use this skill when: - Evaluating an agent system's security posture before production deployment - Running a compliance check against OWASP ASI 2026 standards - Mapping existing security controls to the 10 agentic risks - Generating a compliance report for security review or audit - Comparing agent framework security features against the standard - Any request like "is my agent OWASP compliant?", "check ASI compliance", or "agentic security audit"
— the description by imran-siddique

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

This skill provides a structured framework for evaluating the security posture of autonomous AI agents. It maps agent implementations against the OWASP ASI Top 10, focusing on risks unique to agents that interact with tools and external systems. The skill guides users through checking critical security controls such as input validation, tool governance, identity management, and behavioral monitoring, ultimately generating a compliance report that identifies gaps and provides actionable recommendations.

What it does

  • Scans agent codebases for security signals related to the OWASP ASI Top 10 risks.
  • Provides a checklist for evaluating agent security controls like tool allowlists and identity verification.
  • Generates a formal compliance report summarizing covered and missing security controls.
  • Offers specific code-level examples for passing and failing security checks.
  • Identifies critical gaps in agent architecture and suggests remediation steps.
  • Includes a rapid assessment questionnaire for quick security posture checks.

When to use it

  • Before deploying an AI agent system to production environments.
  • When performing a security audit or compliance review of an agent codebase.
  • To map existing security controls against industry-standard agentic risks.
  • When comparing agent framework security features against the OWASP ASI 2026 standards.
  • To troubleshoot potential security vulnerabilities in agent tool execution or identity.

Advantages

  • Aligns agent security practices with the industry-standard OWASP ASI framework.
  • Provides clear, actionable criteria for what constitutes a secure agent implementation.
  • Helps prevent common agent-specific vulnerabilities like unauthorized escalation and prompt injection.
  • Facilitates structured security reporting for stakeholders and audit teams.
  • Encourages the adoption of deterministic security policies over LLM-based decision making.

Usage examples

“Is my agent OWASP compliant?”
The agent performs a scan of the codebase, evaluates it against the 10 ASI risks, and generates a report highlighting passed controls and critical security gaps.
“Run an agentic security audit on my project.”
The skill analyzes the project files, checks for patterns like insecure tool execution or lack of logging, and provides a summary of the security posture.
“Check ASI compliance for my agent.”
The agent reviews the implementation of tool governance and identity management, returning a status report for each of the 10 ASI risk categories.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/github/agent-owasp-compliance/download
  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip agent-owasp-compliance.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by imran-siddique

Agent OWASP ASI Compliance Check

Evaluate AI agent systems against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 — the industry standard for agent security posture.

Overview

The OWASP ASI Top 10 defines the critical security risks specific to autonomous AI agents — not LLMs, not chatbots, but agents that call tools, access systems, and act on behalf of users. This skill checks whether your agent implementation addresses each risk.

Codebase → Scan for each ASI control:
  ASI-01: Prompt Injection Protection
  ASI-02: Tool Use Governance
  ASI-03: Agency Boundaries
  ASI-04: Escalation Controls
  ASI-05: Trust Boundary Enforcement
  ASI-06: Logging & Audit
  ASI-07: Identity Management
  ASI-08: Policy Integrity
  ASI-09: Supply Chain Verification
  ASI-10: Behavioral Monitoring
→ Generate Compliance Report (X/10 covered)

The 10 Risks

RiskNameWhat to Look For
ASI-01Prompt InjectionInput validation before tool calls, not just LLM output filtering
ASI-02Insecure Tool UseTool allowlists, argument validation, no raw shell execution
ASI-03Excessive AgencyCapability boundaries, scope limits, principle of least privilege
ASI-04Unauthorized EscalationPrivilege checks before sensitive operations, no self-promotion
ASI-05Trust Boundary ViolationTrust verification between agents, signed credentials, no blind trust
ASI-06Insufficient LoggingStructured audit trail for all tool calls, tamper-evident logs
ASI-07Insecure IdentityCryptographic agent identity, not just string names
ASI-08Policy BypassDeterministic policy enforcement, no LLM-based permission checks
ASI-09Supply Chain IntegritySigned plugins/tools, integrity verification, dependency auditing
ASI-10Behavioral AnomalyDrift detection, circuit breakers, kill switch capability

Check ASI-01: Prompt Injection Protection

Look for input validation that runs before tool execution, not after LLM generation.

import re
from pathlib import Path

def check_asi_01(project_path: str) -> dict:
    """ASI-01: Is user input validated before reaching tool execution?"""
    positive_patterns = [
        "input_validation", "validate_input", "sanitize",
        "classify_intent", "prompt_injection", "threat_detect",
        "PolicyEvaluator", "PolicyEngine", "check_content",
    ]
    negative_patterns = [
        r"eval\(", r"exec\(", r"subprocess\.run\(.*shell=True",
        r"os\.system\(",
    ]

    # Scan Python files for signals
    root = Path(project_path)
    positive_matches = []
    negative_matches = []

    for py_file in root.rglob("*.py"):
        content = py_file.read_text(errors="ignore")
        for pattern in positive_patterns:
            if pattern in content:
                positive_matches.append(f"{py_file.name}: {pattern}")
        for pattern in negative_patterns:
            if re.search(pattern, content):
                negative_matches.append(f"{py_file.name}: {pattern}")

    positive_found = len(positive_matches) > 0
    negative_found = len(negative_matches) > 0

    return {
        "risk": "ASI-01",
        "name": "Prompt Injection",
        "status": "pass" if positive_found and not negative_found else "fail",
        "controls_found": positive_matches,
        "vulnerabilities": negative_matches,
        "recommendation": "Add input validation before tool execution, not just output filtering"
    }

What passing looks like:

# GOOD: Validate before tool execution
result = policy_engine.evaluate(user_input)
if result.action == "deny":
    return "Request blocked by policy"
tool_result = await execute_tool(validated_input)

What failing looks like:

# BAD: User input goes directly to tool
tool_result = await execute_tool(user_input)  # No validation

Check ASI-02: Insecure Tool Use

Verify tools have allowlists, argument validation, and no unrestricted execution.

What to search for:

  • Tool registration with explicit allowlists (not open-ended)

  • Argument validation before tool execution

  • No subprocess.run(shell=True) with user-controlled input

  • No eval() or exec() on agent-generated code without sandbox

Passing example:

ALLOWED_TOOLS = {"search", "read_file", "create_ticket"}

def execute_tool(name: str, args: dict):
    if name not in ALLOWED_TOOLS:
        raise PermissionError(f"Tool '{name}' not in allowlist")
    # validate args...
    return tools[name](**validated_args)

Check ASI-03: Excessive Agency

Verify agent capabilities are bounded — not open-ended.

What to search for:

  • Explicit capability lists or execution rings

  • Scope limits on what the agent can access

  • Principle of least privilege applied to tool access

Failing: Agent has access to all tools by default. Passing: Agent capabilities defined as a fixed allowlist, unknown tools denied.


Check ASI-04: Unauthorized Escalation

Verify agents cannot promote their own privileges.

What to search for:

  • Privilege level checks before sensitive operations

  • No self-promotion patterns (agent changing its own trust score or role)

  • Escalation requires external attestation (human or SRE witness)

Failing: Agent can modify its own configuration or permissions. Passing: Privilege changes require out-of-band approval (e.g., Ring 0 requires SRE attestation).


Check ASI-05: Trust Boundary Violation

In multi-agent systems, verify that agents verify each other's identity before accepting instructions.

What to search for:

  • Agent identity verification (DIDs, signed tokens, API keys)

  • Trust score checks before accepting delegated tasks

  • No blind trust of inter-agent messages

  • Delegation narrowing (child scope <= parent scope)

Passing example:

def accept_task(sender_id: str, task: dict):
    trust = trust_registry.get_trust(sender_id)
    if not trust.meets_threshold(0.7):
        raise PermissionError(f"Agent {sender_id} trust too low: {trust.current()}")
    if not verify_signature(task, sender_id):
        raise SecurityError("Task signature verification failed")
    return process_task(task)

Check ASI-06: Insufficient Logging

Verify all agent actions produce structured, tamper-evident audit entries.

What to search for:

  • Structured logging for every tool call (not just print statements)

  • Audit entries include: timestamp, agent ID, tool name, args, result, policy decision

  • Append-only or hash-chained log format

  • Logs stored separately from agent-writable directories

Failing: Agent actions logged via print() or not logged at all. Passing: Structured JSONL audit trail with chain hashes, exported to secure storage.


Check ASI-07: Insecure Identity

Verify agents have cryptographic identity, not just string names.

Failing indicators:

  • Agent identified by agent_name = "my-agent" (string only)

  • No authentication between agents

  • Shared credentials across agents

Passing indicators:

  • DID-based identity (did:web:, did:key:)

  • Ed25519 or similar cryptographic signing

  • Per-agent credentials with rotation

  • Identity bound to specific capabilities


Check ASI-08: Policy Bypass

Verify policy enforcement is deterministic — not LLM-based.

What to search for:

  • Policy evaluation uses deterministic logic (YAML rules, code predicates)

  • No LLM calls in the enforcement path

  • Policy checks cannot be skipped or overridden by the agent

  • Fail-closed behavior (if policy check errors, action is denied)

Failing: Agent decides its own permissions via prompt ("Am I allowed to...?"). Passing: PolicyEvaluator.evaluate() returns allow/deny in <0.1ms, no LLM involved.


Check ASI-09: Supply Chain Integrity

Verify agent plugins and tools have integrity verification.

What to search for:

  • INTEGRITY.json or manifest files with SHA-256 hashes

  • Signature verification on plugin installation

  • Dependency pinning (no @latest, >= without upper bound)

  • SBOM generation


Check ASI-10: Behavioral Anomaly

Verify the system can detect and respond to agent behavioral drift.

What to search for:

  • Circuit breakers that trip on repeated failures

  • Trust score decay over time (temporal decay)

  • Kill switch or emergency stop capability

  • Anomaly detection on tool call patterns (frequency, targets, timing)

Failing: No mechanism to stop a misbehaving agent automatically. Passing: Circuit breaker trips after N failures, trust decays without activity, kill switch available.


Compliance Report Format

# OWASP ASI Compliance Report
Generated: 2026-04-01
Project: my-agent-system

## Summary: 7/10 Controls Covered

| Risk | Status | Finding |
|------|--------|---------|
| ASI-01 Prompt Injection | PASS | PolicyEngine validates input before tool calls |
| ASI-02 Insecure Tool Use | PASS | Tool allowlist enforced in governance.py |
| ASI-03 Excessive Agency | PASS | Execution rings limit capabilities |
| ASI-04 Unauthorized Escalation | PASS | Ring promotion requires attestation |
| ASI-05 Trust Boundary | FAIL | No identity verification between agents |
| ASI-06 Insufficient Logging | PASS | AuditChain with SHA-256 chain hashes |
| ASI-07 Insecure Identity | FAIL | Agents use string names, no crypto identity |
| ASI-08 Policy Bypass | PASS | Deterministic PolicyEvaluator, no LLM in path |
| ASI-09 Supply Chain | FAIL | No integrity manifests or plugin signing |
| ASI-10 Behavioral Anomaly | PASS | Circuit breakers and trust decay active |

## Critical Gaps
- ASI-05: Add agent identity verification using DIDs or signed tokens
- ASI-07: Replace string agent names with cryptographic identity
- ASI-09: Generate INTEGRITY.json manifests for all plugins

## Recommendation
Install agent-governance-toolkit for reference implementations of all 10 controls:
pip install agent-governance-toolkit

Quick Assessment Questions

Use these to rapidly assess an agent system:

  1. Does user input pass through validation before reaching any tool? (ASI-01)

  2. Is there an explicit list of what tools the agent can call? (ASI-02)

  3. Can the agent do anything, or are its capabilities bounded? (ASI-03)

  4. Can the agent promote its own privileges? (ASI-04)

  5. Do agents verify each other's identity before accepting tasks? (ASI-05)

  6. Is every tool call logged with enough detail to replay it? (ASI-06)

  7. Does each agent have a unique cryptographic identity? (ASI-07)

  8. Is policy enforcement deterministic (not LLM-based)? (ASI-08)

  9. Are plugins/tools integrity-verified before use? (ASI-09)

  10. Is there a circuit breaker or kill switch? (ASI-10)

If you answer "no" to any of these, that's a gap to address.


Files

Requirements and compatibility

Written for: GitHub Copilot

Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta

“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.

Needs: Needs an API key, Needs Python

Security

What our scanner noticed· Low risk

  • Instructions that use the network

A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.

Attribution and licence

First committed by
GitHub avatar of imran-siddiqueimran-siddique
Publisher
GitHub (Official)
Distributed by
GitHub
Source
github/awesome-copilot · skills/agent-owasp-compliance · commit 797337f
Licence
MIT License (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced
Contributors
imran-siddique

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by imran-siddique or GitHub.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download agent-owasp-compliance.zip